The reminder above comes from a supposedly leaked MPAA memo obtained by TorrentFreak. It outlines talking points when discussing the much publicized O'Dwyer case, involving the 24-year-old and the "link site" he used to run. TVShack.net didn't directly host possibly infringing materials, but the site did link to such videos. While this would likely be legal under UK law, O'Dwyer landed squarely in the crosshairs of US copyright enforcers. This spring, news broke that O'Dwyer would be extradited to the US for this alleged copyright infringement despite no locally illegal activities being performed in his UK home. O'Dwyer is currently appealing this decision, but the July timeline for an appeal decision was delayed without concrete rescheduling.

O'Dwyer's fight sparked Internet activism of the strongest kind, with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales pushing an online petition. Wales referenced the SOPA-PIPA derailment as the public's "first big victory" in the realm of Internet freedom, and sees preventing O'Dwyer's extradition as a potential second. To date, more than a quarter of a million people have signed the petition. But the MPAA takes a clearly different view (while reassuring all that they are pro-Internet freedom).

“This case isn’t about Internet freedom. It’s about a man profiting from theft. However, we do welcome a larger discussion about how best to protect intellectual property online while ensuring an Internet that works for everyone.”

In addition to some initial talking points, the memo contains a faux-Q&A to keep commentary along the party lines. These responses run the gamut from thoughts on the Wales petition (“We think it’s presumptuous of Mr. Wales to claim to speak for the ‘general public'") to the extradition itself ("Governments and law enforcement agencies make these decisions and we are not in a position to comment on the specifics of the extradition proceedings").

We will update this post if any additional information from the MPAA becomes available, and we'll continue to follow the O'Dwyer situation.

110 Reader Comments

So a guy who didn't break the law in his country of residence being extradited for doing something on the internet has no effect on what other people in that country do on the internet? Pass the doobs.

I would be interested in why the number of people who profit from piracy or linking, etc. isn't more the topic of discussion. In this case for example your article barely even mentions it. The idea that people who had nothing to do with the creation or funding of entertainment but profit from something like illegal link aggregation is pretty crappy to me as a content creator.

International cooperation with criminals is a normal thing, and marketing people who do stuff like this as if they're innocent little kids is certainly disingenuous.

You generally don't get multiple governments involved and shipping someone a good chunk across the world for what should be a civil case at most. Especially when the actions were perfectly legal in the country that the person did everything in.

The MPAA continues to cry about how horrible all these things are, but they have absolutely no evidence that supports any such claims. They like to throw out some made up numbers (Ars investigated the source a while back... absolutely no 'study' was done), but at the same time they continue to make profit (while giving less and less to the people that actually create).

"TVShack.net didn't directly host possibly infringed materials, but the site did link to such videos. While this would likely be legal under UK law, O'Dwyer landed squarely in the crosshairs of US copyright enforcers. "

This is a ridiculous statement considering that the UK court specifically found as part of its 9 page order: "Accordingly in my judgement I am satisfied the conduct alleged in the instant request meets the dual criminality test and would be an offence in this jurisdiction. "

It would be more accurate to say something like "it is commonly believed among internet commenters that what O'Dwyer did was perfectly legal."

Of course O'Dwyer is appealing the extradition order on several grounds, including this one, and it's possible that it will be reversed. But I think calling his acts "likely" legal is a stretch given the court's ruling.

"The idea that people who had nothing to do with the creation or funding of entertainment but profit from something like illegal link aggregation is pretty crappy to me as a content creator." Well, it was only £15,000/month.

The idea that people who had nothing to do with the creation or funding of entertainment but profit from something like illegal link aggregation is pretty crappy to me as a content creator.

Illegal?

If he was going out of his way to point to illegal downloads and then profiting (I assume from ads on the pages) that seems like him willfully helping people find it, I know that everybody who comments on these articles is a lawyer, but I'll again say, where is the talk about him profiting from creative work that he had nothing to do with funding or creating? Does that not bother anybody discussing this topic at all and if so why not?

KitsuneKnight wrote:

You generally don't get multiple governments involved and shipping someone a good chunk across the world for what should be a civil case at most. Especially when the actions were perfectly legal in the country that the person did everything in..

I don't see it established that what he did was perfectly legal. The article says it was likely legal, and that was not actually confirmed b/c he's being extradited. You guys have a way of massaging things a little at a time until by the end of any discussion thread the MPAA has executed Harriet Tubman for raping baby seals.

I'll again say, where is the talk about him profiting from creative work that he had nothing to do with funding or creating? Does that not bother anybody discussing this topic at all and if so why not?.

I will bet that many here agree what he did can be described as morally wrong.

The problem is you have a large organization bending the government to its will to extradite a kid from another country for actions that have not been show to be criminal. This is complete abuse of due process as well as international criminal policy.

If you think his actions violate a UK criminal statute, find some reference to anything saying that. Every article I have read on this topic indicates current UK legal decisions on similar cases have found his actions not to be criminal.

So between the two acts, his profiting from aggregating pirate links, and USGov and MPAA strongarming the UK into extraditing him, the latter is far more worthy of discussion. The former is a minor issue.

I don't see it established that what he did was perfectly legal. The article says it was likely legal, and that was not actually confirmed b/c he's being extradited. You guys have a way of massaging things a little at a time until by the end of any discussion thread the MPAA has executed Harriet Tubman for raping baby seals.

In the past, in the UK, it was already decided that simply linking to infringing material was NOT illegal in any way. Only hosting the content was illegal.

This ruling has never been over-turned and currently remains that what TVShack was doing was perfectly legal in the UK.

The idea that people who had nothing to do with the creation or funding of entertainment but profit from something like illegal link aggregation is pretty crappy to me as a content creator.

Illegal?

If he was going out of his way to point to illegal downloads and then profiting (I assume from ads on the pages) that seems like him willfully helping people find it, I know that everybody who comments on these articles is a lawyer, but I'll again say, where is the talk about him profiting from creative work that he had nothing to do with funding or creating? Does that not bother anybody discussing this topic at all and if so why not?

KitsuneKnight wrote:

You generally don't get multiple governments involved and shipping someone a good chunk across the world for what should be a civil case at most. Especially when the actions were perfectly legal in the country that the person did everything in..

I don't see it established that what he did was perfectly legal. The article says it was likely legal, and that was not actually confirmed b/c he's being extradited. You guys have a way of massaging things a little at a time until by the end of any discussion thread the MPAA has executed Harriet Tubman for raping baby seals.

FYI, Google will wrap returned queries in advertisements in order to profit from your searches for torrents, warez, 0-day crakkz, keygenz and serialz, direct http downloads of movies, tv shows and games. Why isn't there this level of interest in Google?

If he was going out of his way to point to illegal downloads and then profiting (I assume from ads on the pages) that seems like him willfully helping people find it, I know that everybody who comments on these articles is a lawyer, but I'll again say, where is the talk about him profiting from creative work that he had nothing to do with funding or creating? Does that not bother anybody discussing this topic at all and if so why not?

So, are you suggesting, that you think that the people who own and operate, say, Google, or Bing, or Yahoo should likewise be summarily incarcerated, and shipped to a foreign country where they can be prosecuted for 'willfully helping people find it'?

You can find links to the pirate bay on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, which according to you would be enough of a standard of evidence to have those search engines shut down.

FYI, Google will wrap returned queries in advertisements in order to profit from your searches for torrents, warez, 0-day crakkz, keygenz and serialz, direct http downloads of movies, tv shows and games. Why isn't there this level of interest in Google?

"Google now regularly receives more copyright 'notice and takedown' requests from rights-holders in a week than it did during the entirety of 2009, the company has said."

Bengie25 wrote:

This ruling has never been over-turned and currently remains that what TVShack was doing was perfectly legal in the UK.

That's why he's being extradited for trial to a partnering nation.. People flee to places after they've done things wrong all the time, then the other country asks for that person to be sent back even though no crime was committed in the new country... right? That's a normal thing, and with the internet you don't have to be physically present to do it, so the procedures are a little different but the tenets feel the same.

That being said I do agree with whoever said it should be a civil court issue, and that speaks more to the prison industrial complex/incarceration obsession that this country has.

If he was going out of his way to point to illegal downloads and then profiting (I assume from ads on the pages) that seems like him willfully helping people find it, I know that everybody who comments on these articles is a lawyer, but I'll again say, where is the talk about him profiting from creative work that he had nothing to do with funding or creating? Does that not bother anybody discussing this topic at all and if so why not?

So, are you suggesting, that you think that the people who own and operate, say, Google, or Bing, or Yahoo should likewise be summarily incarcerated, and shipped to a foreign country where they can be prosecuted for 'willfully helping people find it'?

You can find links to the pirate bay on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, which according to you would be enough of a standard of evidence to have those search engines shut down.

Great difference; O'dwyer exercised a lot of hands-on control of his website, where the search engines are fully automated. His website was also _dedicated_ to encouraging--or at least simplifying--illegal activities, where with Google etc such links are incidental.

It is plainly obvious that this guy is being singled out to be made an example of. Even if what he was doing was illegal in the UK (which is isn't, as others in this thread have shown), AND even if it was worth the time and money to extradite one guy over one website nobody had even heard of before all this (plainly not), the fact remains that thousands of identical websites doing exactly the same thing go on unabated, including Google. Google has the most money, there's no extradition required, and they're doing exaclty the same thing. The content middlemen plainly should have gone after Google first.

They aren't going to do that, of course. Google can defend itself.

Boskone wrote:

Great difference; O'dwyer exercised a lot of hands-on control of his website, where the search engines are fully automated. His website was also _dedicated_ to encouraging--or at least simplifying--illegal activities, where with Google etc such links are incidental.

Well the problems with that logic are twofold: First, what he was doing was NOT illegal in the UK. Americans can barely understand our screwed up IP laws, how do you expect people who don't even live here to know them, much less suspect they would actually have to obey them. Secondly, if he WERE to somehow discover that he would somehow be held to US laws, then he would presumably also find out about DMCA safe harbor provisions and almost certainly would have implemented them like every other torrent and link site that does operate in the US.

If he was going out of his way to point to illegal downloads and then profiting (I assume from ads on the pages) that seems like him willfully helping people find it, I know that everybody who comments on these articles is a lawyer, but I'll again say, where is the talk about him profiting from creative work that he had nothing to do with funding or creating? Does that not bother anybody discussing this topic at all and if so why not?

So, are you suggesting, that you think that the people who own and operate, say, Google, or Bing, or Yahoo should likewise be summarily incarcerated, and shipped to a foreign country where they can be prosecuted for 'willfully helping people find it'?

You can find links to the pirate bay on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, which according to you would be enough of a standard of evidence to have those search engines shut down.

Great difference; O'dwyer exercised a lot of hands-on control of his website, where the search engines are fully automated. His website was also _dedicated_ to encouraging--or at least simplifying--illegal activities, where with Google etc such links are incidental.

I think the complicaiton in this case is that what he was doing was not illegal in UK but illegal in US. I would say the contentious issue is issue of jurisdiction rather than the act itself at the moment.

It is plainly obvious that this guy is being singled out to be made an example of. Even if what he was doing was illegal in the UK (which is isn't, as others in this thread have shown), AND even if it was worth the time and money to extradite one guy over one website nobody had even heard of before all this (plainly not), the fact remains that thousands of identical websites doing exactly the same thing go on unabated, including Google. Google has the most money, there's no extradition required, and they're doing exaclty the same thing. The content middlemen plainly should have gone after Google first.

They aren't going to do that, of course. Google can defend itself.

I've posted a link, and Ars has done stories, on all the takedown notices google gets. This also of course doesn't mention the fact that youtube has tons of takedown notices, and has faced lawsuits before and since google's purchase. What you're saying has zero basis in reality, at least as related to the term "unabated", which it very much is not.

It is plainly obvious that this guy is being singled out to be made an example of. Even if what he was doing was illegal in the UK (which is isn't, as others in this thread have shown), AND even if it was worth the time and money to extradite one guy over one website nobody had even heard of before all this (plainly not), the fact remains that thousands of identical websites doing exactly the same thing go on unabated, including Google. Google has the most money, there's no extradition required, and they're doing exaclty the same thing. The content middlemen plainly should have gone after Google first.

They aren't going to do that, of course. Google can defend itself.

I've posted a link, and Ars has done stories, on all the takedown notices google gets. This also of course doesn't mention the fact that youtube has tons of takedown notices, and has faced lawsuits before and since google's purchase. What you're saying has zero basis in reality, at least as related to the term "unabated", which it very much is not.

Why are they calling this guy a kid? He's 24 years old. In America, he's been a legal adult for 6 years, and is 2 years older than graduates of a 4-year college who started right out of high school, 3 if they started at 17 (and graduated at 21). In the UK I believe 16 is an adult, so he's been a man for 8 years. Anecdotal, but my stepmother is in her early 50s and loves Mickey Mouse, and is fond of a Mickey Mouse sweatshirt. Doesn't make her a kid any more or less than it does him. He may be 8 years my junior, but he's a man, not a kid. So can we call a man, or a spade... you know?

Second, if what he did is legal in the United Kingdom, should that not be full stop? This isn't armchair lawyering, and I'm not a lawyer, but if he did things in the UK that were illegal in the United States, what right do we have as Americans (this includes the MPAA, as they are an American organization) to take a citizen of the UK and try him in our country where his actions happen to be legal? And what of the UK parliament, are they just rolling over on this one? Don't they care about the welfare of their citizens? If they're just going to capitulate to US law, why not just accept their role as the 51st state? Are they not a sovereign nation? Speaking of sovereign, what does the Queen/Royal Family think of Americans arresting Britons for committing American crimes without setting foot on US soil?

If O'Dwyer is profiting off copyright infringement (or rather was), sure he's a rat, but international criminal? I can't agree with that.

Also, as I understand it, his site pointed to file lockers like MegaUpload. Can't law enforcement agencies, and/or anti-piracy groups, use his site to ultimately track down the uploaders? Seems like it would be better for them to leave his site running, and use it to accomplish their goals.

It is plainly obvious that this guy is being singled out to be made an example of. Even if what he was doing was illegal in the UK (which is isn't, as others in this thread have shown), AND even if it was worth the time and money to extradite one guy over one website nobody had even heard of before all this (plainly not), the fact remains that thousands of identical websites doing exactly the same thing go on unabated, including Google. Google has the most money, there's no extradition required, and they're doing exaclty the same thing. The content middlemen plainly should have gone after Google first.

They aren't going to do that, of course. Google can defend itself.

I've posted a link, and Ars has done stories, on all the takedown notices google gets. This also of course doesn't mention the fact that youtube has tons of takedown notices, and has faced lawsuits before and since google's purchase. What you're saying has zero basis in reality, at least as related to the term "unabated", which it very much is not.

Also, as others have noted, the key issue is the attempt by the content middlemen to hold non-US citizens up to US laws. That simply can't be allowed. If it does happen, if he gets extradited, then there's something absolutely wrong. Maybe next software company CEO's will be extradited to Europe for enforcing software patents? Maybe cheesemakers will be extradited for not following EU place-of-origin laws? I hate to pull the slippery slope argument, but if people can be extradited for things that are legal in their own countries, then every person on the planet would be in danger of extradition to some country or another.

Why are they calling this guy a kid? He's 24 years old. In America, he's been a legal adult for 6 years, and is 2 years older than graduates of a 4-year college who started right out of high school, 3 if they started at 17 (and graduated at 21). In the UK I believe 16 is an adult, so he's been a man for 8 years. Anecdotal, but my stepmother is in her early 50s and loves Mickey Mouse, and is fond of a Mickey Mouse sweatshirt. Doesn't make her a kid any more or less than it does him. He may be 8 years my junior, but he's a man, not a kid. So can we call a man, or a spade... you know?

Second, if what he did is legal in the United Kingdom, should that not be full stop? This isn't armchair lawyering, and I'm not a lawyer, but if he did things in the UK that were illegal in the United States, what right do we have as Americans (this includes the MPAA, as they are an American organization) to take a citizen of the UK and try him in our country where his actions happen to be legal? And what of the UK parliament, are they just rolling over on this one? Don't they care about the welfare of their citizens? If they're just going to capitulate to US law, why not just accept their role as the 51st state? Are they not a sovereign nation? Speaking of sovereign, what does the Queen/Royal Family think of Americans arresting Britons for committing American crimes without setting foot on US soil?

If O'Dwyer is profiting off copyright infringement (or rather was), sure he's a rat, but international criminal? I can't agree with that.

Also, as I understand it, his site pointed to file lockers like MegaUpload. Can't law enforcement agencies, and/or anti-piracy groups, use his site to ultimately track down the uploaders? Seems like it would be better for them to leave his site running, and use it to accomplish their goals.

There was a previous case where given that the site is hosted on .com address, it falls under US jurisdiction. Whether this allows extradition of foreign national is unknown to me. If anything, I would think that he is wanted for questioning; much like Dotcom case and Assange case.

Also, as others have noted, the key issue is the attempt by the content middlemen to hold non-US citizens up to US laws. That simply can't be allowed. If it does happen, if he gets extradited, then there's something absolutely wrong. Maybe next software company CEO's will be extradited to Europe for enforcing software patents? Maybe cheesemakers will be extradited for not following EU place-of-origin laws? I hate to pull the slippery slope argument, but if people can be extradited for things that are legal in their own countries, then every person on the planet would be in danger of extradition to some country or another.

Fair point. My political leanings steer me away from international law enforcement in general so I'd rather err on the side of sovereignty. But again, extradition for stuff that's a crime committed somewhere else doesn't seem like a new thing.

If someone in Canada scans a copy of the original, first edition 1984 by George Orwell and PDFs this, placing the copy itself into the public domain (or using a creative commons license with a permissive mixture) and I link to this on my website, is it illegal?

1984 is in the public domain in Canada. I am Canadian. It is not in the public domain in the United States.

At what point - in your view of how the world works - does the USA get to ruin my life? Because I use a .com? Because the host is in the US? What if I use a .CA and the host is in Canada, but the DNS company I use happens to have US servers? What is none of the services used (DNS, Registrar, Host) are American? Should the USA still be allowed the ruin me financially? Threaten me with lawsuits and harass me? Tie me up in court on various charges?

Should they be allowed to seize any international assets I may have (US bank accounts, unrelated servers in US colos.) Should the US be allowed to arrest me as soon as I cross the border? What is the scope of law of the American empire for you?

More to the point: should I - a Canadian citizen - be arrested/extradited/sued/harassed/stolen from by the US government for doing something that is perfectly legal in my home country while in my home country?

If you do believe I should be arrested for breaking an American law while a Canadian on Canadian soil, why should I be extradited to the US? SO I not have the right to be judged by a jury of my peers? My peers are not American. My peers are Canadian. Regardless of how hard Americans try, Canadian values are markedly different; our sense of right and wrong, our sense of "what is legal," even our sense of the place of corporations and government services within the lives of the individual is completely different from those of Americans.

By what moral, ethical AND legal rights would an American jury - who are not my peers - or an American judge - who is not versed in the laws of my nation - be fit to pass judgment over my actions in my own homeland?

Now, change my name to O’Dwyer. And change “posting a link to a work that is public domain in Canada but not in the United States” to “posting a link to a copywritten works, which is legal in the UK, but not the US.”

By what moral, ethical AND legal rights do you propose that an American jury or judge sit in judgement of this UK citizen who has done nothing illegal in his homeland whilst in his homeland?

If O’Dwyer is in violation of the laws of the United Kingdom, then he deserves – morally, ethically and legally – to be judged by a judge and jury of his peers: citizens of the United Kingdom.

Extradition only makes sense when the “crime” committed is:1) Actually a crime, as opposed to a civil tort2) Committed against citizens of the nation requesting extradition3) Actually a crime (or likely to be interpreted as a crime) in both nations.

If you disagree with 3, then you are opening the door to the moral, ethical and legal right of any nation to extradite you for actions you commit on the soil of your homeland which are perfectly legal in your homeland. Insulting monarchs, religious figures, inciting rebellion, encouraging women to seek equality…the list goes on.

If we are simply allowing the laws of any nation to supersede the laws of any other (you can be extradited for acts not considered a crime in your own nation, but which are in others)…why not treason? Some speech posted online by Americans would be considered treason in any number of countries. That’s punishable by death almost everywhere.

So should calling for the overthrow of an African dictator online be a crime for which average Americans are extradited to banana republics, lined up against a wall and then shot? In those countries seditious speech is actually a crime, not a civil tort.

Yet here we have an act that is a civil tort in the grand old US of A – not yet proven as a crime, despite much effort – that is perfectly legal for O’Dwyer back home. Or me, posting a link to works that are public domain here, but not in the US.

Why should he – or I – face extradition for a civil tort that is legal where the actions took place, if you aren’t willing to extradite criminals violating lèse majesté on Thai say-so?

I love all these fantastical hypothetical situations that you lawyers come up with on an article about an actual situation. "What if I am actually a time traveler, and it turns out that I invented Mickey Mouse, stuck the drawings on Walt Disney's table, then came back to the present and tried to use that character in a 3d animated cartoon I make with Thai midgets?" GTFOH with this.

Why is the obligation on this kid? In other words, why should he be gitmo'd and Google gets to skate?

If I walk into a nightclub with roofies in my pocket, and I put the roofies in a drink that the nightclub served to a hot blonde, should the nightclub be held liable for the roofies being on their property?

Poor copyright holders -- they get 95 years of "ownership," tax free, and they think it's not enough.

I love all these fantastical hypothetical situations that you lawyers come up with on an article about an actual situation. "What if I am actually a time traveler, and it turns out that I invented Mickey Mouse, stuck the drawings on Walt Disney's table, then came back to the present and tried to use that character in a 3d animated cartoon I make with Thai midgets?" GTFOH with this.

Well if you can actually prove that you were the original author and that you periodically went back to extend the copyright terms, sure.

The idea that people who had nothing to do with the creation or funding of entertainment but profit from something like illegal link aggregation is pretty crappy to me as a content creator.

The idea that my taxes are being wasted on this conflation of a thing that should at most be a civil matter, or really not be anything at all, into some sort of international criminal conspiracy is pretty crappy to me as a taxpayer. The rule of law governing this is meant to be applied to terrorist and other violent activities that endanger lives, not harmless pursuits that maybe/perhaps/possibly cause a few billionaires to pocket a few dollars less than they might otherwise have done. This affects "creatives" not at all. It makes an ass of the law. I'm embarrassed and angry that my country is pulling this crap and wasting my money to do it, all in the name of shaking down some political donations from Big Entertainment.

I love all these fantastical hypothetical situations that you lawyers come up with on an article about an actual situation. "What if I am actually a time traveler, and it turns out that I invented Mickey Mouse, stuck the drawings on Walt Disney's table, then came back to the present and tried to use that character in a 3d animated cartoon I make with Thai midgets?" GTFOH with this.

I love how you dodge answering the hard questions about real world issues. I did not present "hypothetical scenarios." I presented real issues. I presented legal differences that exist on the international scene today, and asked you to fill in your opinion about how they should be handled, especially in light of your support for the US actions discussed in this article.

This isn’t hypothetical. I have several links to public domain works on sites I operate. These works are indeed public domain in Canada, while many are not in the United States. The O’Dwyer case establishes precedent within the US for handling of situations like exactly the one I am in.

How the US treats citizens of other nations can in the future and does today have real world consequences on how other nations will treat US citizens in similar situations.

So stop trying to dodge questions about the consequences of the actions you champion. Man the fuck up, and discuss the real world ramifications of this very real world event instead of parroting the party line of American copyright maximalists.

You don’t get to parade around here claiming moral, ethical and legal superiority without backing it up. Back it up in this case here on the article. Back it up as it would apply to similar situations for others. And back it up when the tables are reversed and it is an American on the dock.

This isn't a game. This isn't about one kid and some links and the "need" or "right" to make an example out of him on behalf of the futile "war on piracy." The implications of this case, in the real world, are far grander in scope than that. With very real, very immediate effects on people in this very forum.

Given that the second circuit just ruled that linking isn't a violation of copyright even if you are linking to files that are behind a paywall, I'm having a hard time seeing how this can possibly go forward. He didn't violate the Laws of the UK, and he apparently didn't violate any laws in the US. So... Yeah what's the point of this again?

Second, if what he did is legal in the United Kingdom, should that not be full stop? This isn't armchair lawyering, and I'm not a lawyer, but if he did things in the UK that were illegal in the United States, what right do we have as Americans (this includes the MPAA, as they are an American organization) to take a citizen of the UK and try him in our country where his actions happen to be legal?

There was a previous case where given that the site is hosted on .com address, it falls under US jurisdiction. Whether this allows extradition of foreign national is unknown to me. If anything, I would think that he is wanted for questioning; much like Dotcom case and Assange case.

IANAL though.

I'm not either, but I would think, at worst, he's using international communication services (i.e. the internet) to tell Americans (and others) how to download movies. It's the moral and basically technical equivalent of posting the links on Facebook, or emailing them.

If anything, I think maybe his access to communicating with Americans should potentially be challenged, but if his government doesn't care, I don't see how he falls under our (American) jurisdiction.

Astlor wrote:

If we are simply allowing the laws of any nation to supersede the laws of any other (you can be extradited for acts not considered a crime in your own nation, but which are in others)…why not treason? Some speech posted online by Americans would be considered treason in any number of countries. That’s punishable by death almost everywhere.

So should calling for the overthrow of an African dictator online be a crime for which average Americans are extradited to banana republics, lined up against a wall and then shot? In those countries seditious speech is actually a crime, not a civil tort.

This is a great point, and we have actually had American citizens executed for violating international law. It may have been spun differently, but the American (and other national?) journalists beheaded in the Middle East, we consider these acts of terror, but they violated the law of the land, yet we expect some sort of diplomatic immunity in times of war. Why? Sure, it's decent, but we're going to war with these people because -- according to our government (and Fox News, haha), these people are indecent. And yes, of course, include people who don't actually go to those countries, and make statements online, whether it's Facebook or Twitter, 4chan or Reddit, Tumblr or Wordpress, that would be illegal in those countries. We're not extraditing these people (and the Middle East and other criticized governments aren't asking, AFAIK). Is watching movies without paying for them really so much worse than sedition?

TomTheAlmostUgly wrote:

Poor copyright holders -- they get 95 years of "ownership," tax free, and they think it's not enough.

Interesting point. Tell me more about how this guy was only sharing movies from 1907 and prior.

To all the commercial content creators out there who feel that the laws of their lands should be applied to other countries also, dont worry.The time will come that we will not buy or even watch, listen or otherwise consume your content unless it was legally free ex over the air transmissions like radio and public tv.This is how disgusted many of us are of your so called "entitlements" to our rights and freedoms.Therefore we will withdraw all support for your so called "content".Lets see where your content goes.It can go both ways you see.A boycott will do wonders for your bankbooks in 3 years.

Excellent posts Astlor. To anyone who can read well enough to understand, you point out the absurdity of this situation. Yes, let's extradite me to Russia because I protest the rule of Putin, the new dictator of "democratic" Russia.How many other examples can we think of ?Proud that you're a Canadian. As for some of the other posters, "...AA" shills, I think.